Joint European Academy of Neurology-European Pain Federation-Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP. RESULTS: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

Diagnosing nociplastic pain in cancer survivors: a major step forward.

Nociplastic pain syndromes include particular fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, headache, complex regional pain syndrome, and idiopathic orofacial pain. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for nociplastic pain including central sensitisation, alterations of pain modulatory controls, epigenetic changes, and peripheral mechanisms. Importantly, nociplastic pain might also be present in patients with cancer pain, particularly those with pain related to complications of cancer treatment. Increased awareness of nociplastic pain associated with cancer should have important implications for monitoring and managing such patients.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions.

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We carried out a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and rerandomized at a 2:1 ratio to active or sham-rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary end point was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (Group × Time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified intention-to-treat population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomized and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for Group × Session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; P = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03, P = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimension of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effects on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups, respectively (P = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

Lifestyle and chronic pain: double jeopardy?

Given the often disappointing results of pharmacotherapy, many patients with chronic pain seek to modify their lifestyle. Some lifestyle factors, such as the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or psychostimulants, are deleterious in this context, whereas others, such as physical activity and a balanced diet, are considered beneficial, but these require substantial effort on the part of patients. In all cases, it is important to analyse lifestyle factors in patients with chronic pain, without stigmatisation, as the co-existence of pain and inappropriate behaviour can be seen as double jeopardy in patients with pain.

Advances in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuropathic pain remains difficult to treat. This review provides an update regarding recent advances in therapeutic management, particularly with regards to newer drugs, neurostimulation techniques and original study designs. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the mainstay of neuropathic pain management is still represented by drug therapy, particularly antidepressants and antiepileptics, the place of nonpharmacological therapy including in particular brain neuromodulation techniques has substantially increased in recent years. Newer study designs are also increasingly implemented, based on in depth phenotypic profiling to achieve more individualized therapy, or on screening strategies to decrease placebo effect and contribute to increase assay sensitivity. These approaches are now considered the most promising to decrease therapeutic failures in neuropathic pain. SUMMARY: Neuropathic pain management should not be restricted to pharmacotherapy but now encompasses multiple approaches including particularly neuromodulation techniques. Multimodal assessment can also help identify predictors of the response in clinical trials in order to ensure appropriate management.

Does cognitive functioning predict chronic pain? Results from a prospective surgical cohort.

It is well established that chronic pain impairs cognition, particularly memory, attention and mental flexibility. Overlaps have been found between the brain regions involved in pain modulation and cognition, including in particular the prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex, which are involved in executive function, attention and memory. However, whether cognitive function may predict chronic pain has not been investigated. We addressed this question in surgical patients, because such patients can be followed prospectively and may have no pain before surgery. In this prospective longitudinal study, we investigated the links between executive function, visual memory and attention, as assessed by clinical measurements and the development of chronic pain, its severity and neuropathic symptoms (based on the 'Douleur Neuropathique 4' questionnaire), 6 and 12 months after surgery (total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or breast surgery for cancer). Neuropsychological tests included the Trail-Making Test A and B, and the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure copy and immediate recall, which assess cognitive flexibility, visuospatial processing and visual memory. Anxiety, depression and coping strategies were also evaluated. In total, we investigated 189 patients before surgery: 96% were re-evaluated at 6 months, and 88% at 12 months. Multivariate logistic regression (stepwise selection) for the total group of patients indicated that the presence of clinical meaningful pain at 6 and 12 months (pain intensity ≥ 3/10) was predicted by poorer cognitive performance in the Trail Making Test B (P = 0.0009 and 0.02 for pain at 6 and 12 months, respectively), Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure copy (P = 0.015 and 0.006 for pain at 6 and 12 months, respectively) and recall (P = 0.016 for pain at 12 months), independently of affective variables. Linear regression analyses indicated that impaired scores on these tests predicted pain intensity (P < 0.01) and neuropathic symptoms in patients with pain (P < 0.05), although the strength of the association was less robust for neuropathic symptoms. These results were not affected by the type of surgery or presurgical pain, similar findings being obtained specifically for patients who initially had no pain. In conclusion, these findings support, for the first time, the notion that premorbid limited cognitive flexibility and memory capacities may be linked to the mechanisms of pain chronicity and probably also to its neuropathic quality. This may imply that patients with deficits in executive functioning or memory because of cerebral conditions have a greater risk of pain chronicity after a painful event.

Refractory Chronic Pain Screening Tool (RCPST): a feasibility study to assess practicality and validity of identifying potential neurostimulation candidates.

OBJECTIVE: An international panel of pain specialists (anesthesiology, neurology, neurosurgery, and psychology) and research methodologists developed a screening tool to identify patients who may be suitable for spinal cord stimulation (SCS)--the Refractory Chronic Pain Screening Tool (RCPST) prototype. We describe a feasibility study to explore practicality and validity of this prototype. DESIGN: Consecutive outpatients were screened in two centers (United Kingdom and United States). Sixty chronic pain adults without satisfactory pain relief despite treatment were assessed using RCPST (by pain specialist without expertise in neurostimulation) and then evaluated by two pain specialists experienced in SCS implantation and management to determine whether the patient should be referred for SCS. To maintain blinding, the participating physicians did not inform each other or the patient of assessment outcome. Sensitivity and specificity of the RCPST prototype were calculated using implanters' judgment as "gold standard." RESULTS: The average age of patients was 47.7 years; 53% were female. Fifty-seven patients completed the study (one withdrew consent, two lost to follow-up). The pain specialists agreed the prototype was easy to use and took <10 minutes to complete. Implanter agreement was moderate (Kappa: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.91). The prototype had low sensitivity (40%, 19-61%) and moderate specificity (78%, 65-92%). Using the same questionnaire with a modified decision algorithm, new prototypes were generated with range of high sensitivity (80-100%) and specificity (89-97%) values. CONCLUSIONS: The RCPST aims to identify patients that should be referred for consideration for neurostimulation. The final implant decision requires appropriate neurological diagnostic workup, psychological assessment, and trial stimulation. RCPST was considered practical for routine clinical practice and contained appropriate questions. Sensitivity needs to be improved. A future study should select and validate the ideal RCPST prototype.

Pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neurostimulation for neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain poses a significant challenge due to its complex mechanisms, necessitating specific treatments. In recent decades, significant progress has been made in the clinical research of neuropathic pain, marking a shift from empirical strategies to evidence-based medicine in its management. This review outlines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Antidepressants (tricyclic and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors), antiepileptics (gabapentin, pregabalin), and topical agents constitute the main pharmacological treatments. These approaches target peripheral or central mechanisms associated with neuropathic pain. Noninvasive neurostimulation, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provides non-pharmacological alternatives. However, challenges persist in effectively targeting existing medications and developing drugs that act on novel targets, necessitating innovative therapeutic strategies.

Prediction of the response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in peripheral neuropathic pain and validation of a new algorithm.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02010281.

Comparison of the analgesic effects of "superficial" and "deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized sham-controlled multicenter international crossover study.

ABSTRACT: We directly compared the analgesic effects of "superficial" and 'deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex in patients with central neuropathic pain. Fifty-nine consecutive patients were randomly assigned to active or sham "superficial" (using a figure-of-8 [F8]-coil) or "deep" (using a Hesed [H]-coil) stimulation according to a double-blind crossover design. Each treatment period consisted of 5 daily stimulation sessions and 2 follow-up visits at 1 and 3 weeks after the last stimulation session. The primary outcome was the comparison of the mean change in average pain intensity over the course of the treatment (group × time interaction). Secondary outcomes included neuropathic symptoms (NPSI), pain interference, patient global impression of change (PGIC), anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing. In total, 51 patients participated in at least one session of both treatments. There was a significant interaction between "treatment" and "time" (F = 2.7; P = 0.0024), indicating that both figure-8 (F8-coil) and H-coil active stimulation induced significantly higher analgesic effects than sham stimulation. The analgesic effects of both types of coils had a similar magnitude but were only moderately correlated ( r = 0.39, P = 0.02). The effects of F8-coil stimulation appeared earlier, whereas the effects of H-coil stimulation were delayed, but tended to last longer (up to 3 weeks) as regards to several secondary outcomes (PGIC and total NPSI score). In conclusion, "deep" and "superficial" rTMS induced analgesic effects of similar magnitude in patients with central pain, which may involve different mechanisms of action.

Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system.

ABSTRACT: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

What is associated with painful polyneuropathy? A cross-sectional analysis of symptoms and signs in patients with painful and painless polyneuropathy.

ABSTRACT: It is still unclear how and why some patients develop painful and others painless polyneuropathy. The aim of this study was to identify multiple factors associated with painful polyneuropathies (NeuP). A total of 1181 patients of the multicenter DOLORISK database with painful (probable or definite NeuP) or painless (unlikely NeuP) probable or confirmed neuropathy were investigated clinically, with questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing. Multivariate logistic regression including all variables (demographics, medical history, psychological symptoms, personality items, pain-related worrying, life-style factors, as well as results from clinical examination and quantitative sensory testing) and machine learning was used for the identification of predictors and final risk prediction of painful neuropathy. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that severity and idiopathic etiology of neuropathy, presence of chronic pain in family, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Fatigue and Depression T-Score, as well as Pain Catastrophizing Scale total score are the most important features associated with the presence of pain in neuropathy. Machine learning (random forest) identified the same variables. Multivariate logistic regression archived an accuracy above 78%, random forest of 76%; thus, almost 4 out of 5 subjects can be classified correctly. This multicenter analysis shows that pain-related worrying, emotional well-being, and clinical phenotype are factors associated with painful (vs painless) neuropathy. Results may help in the future to identify patients at risk of developing painful neuropathy and identify consequences of pain in longitudinal studies.

[Pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain in primary care]. / Traitement pharmacologique des douleurs neuropathiques en soins de premier recours.

Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat. First line treatment includes tricyclic antidepressants (notably amitriptyline), mixed serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain), antiepileptics (gabapentin and pregabalin) and topical agents (lidocaine plasters for postherpetic neuralgia). These drugs can be subsequently associated in case of partial response to monotherapy. Opioids and tramadol are only considered second/third line, alone or in combination with first line drugs.

Personalized treatment of neuropathic pain: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND: The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major unmet need that the development of personalized and refined treatment strategies may contribute to address. DATABASE: In this narrative review, we summarize the various approaches based on objective biomarkers or clinical markers that could be used. RESULTS: In principle, the validation of objective biomarkers would be the most robust approach. However, although promising results have been reported demonstrating a potential value of genomics, anatomical or functional markers, the clinical validation of these markers has only just begun. Thus, most of the strategies documented to date have been based on the development of clinical markers. In particular, many studies have suggested that the identification of specific subgroups of patients presenting with specific combinations of symptoms and signs would be a relevant approach. Two main approaches have been used to identify relevant sensory profiles: quantitative sensory testing and specific patients reported outcomes based on description of pain qualities. CONCLUSION: We discuss here the advantages and limitations of these approaches, which are not mutually exclusive. SIGNIFICANCE: Recent data indicate that various new treatment strategies based on predictive biological and/or clinical markers could be helpful to better personalized and therefore improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Thermal grill illusion of pain in patients with chronic pain: a clinical marker of central sensitization?

ABSTRACT: The thermal grill illusion of pain (TGIP) is a paradoxical burning pain sensation elicited by the simultaneous application of innocuous cutaneous warm and cold stimuli with a thermode ("thermal grill") consisting of interlaced heated and cooled bars. Its neurophysiological mechanisms are unclear, but TGIP may have some mechanisms in common with pathological pain, including central sensitization in particular, through the involvement of N-methyl- d -aspartate receptors. However, few studies have investigated TGIP in patients with chronic pain and its clinical relevance is uncertain. We hypothesized that the TGIP would be increased in comparison with controls in patients with fibromyalgia or irritable bowel syndrome, which are regarded as typical "nociplastic" primary pain syndromes related to changes in central pain processing. We compared the sensations elicited by a large range of combinations of temperature differentials between the warm and cold bars of a thermal grill applied to the hand between patients with fibromyalgia (n = 30) or irritable bowel syndrome (n= 30) and controls (n = 30). The percentage of TGIP responses and the intensity and unpleasantness of TGIP were significantly greater in patients than controls. Furthermore, positive correlations were found between TGIP intensity and clinical pain intensity and between TGIP intensity and the cold pain threshold measured on the hand. These results are consistent with our working hypothesis of shared mechanisms between TGIP and clinical pain mechanisms in patients with nociplastic chronic pain syndromes and suggest that TGIP might represent a clinical marker of central sensitization in these patients.

Neuropathy and pain after breast cancer treatment: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Neurological complications including pain are common after treatment for breast cancer. This prospective study investigated the symptoms, intensity and interference of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuro-pathy. (CIPN) in the feet and hands compared to surgery- and radiation-induced neuropathy in the breast and upper arm. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to surgery for breast cancer were included in a prospective study and completed a questionnaire at baseline and a follow-up questionnaire and interview after one year. CIPN was assessed with the CIPN20 questionnaire and the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire (MNSIq). Pain intensity was rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10). RESULTS: In total 144 patients were included, of which 73 received chemotherapy. At one-year follow-up, symptoms of polyneuropathy were more common in patients treated with chemotherapy. Tingling or numbness in the feet in those treated/not treated with chemotherapy was reported by 44 (62%) and 15 (21%), respectively. Pain was present in 22 (30%) and 10 (14%), respectively. Pain in the area of surgery was reported by 66 (46%). Although less common, pain in the feet in those treated with chemotherapy was rated as more intense and with more daily life interference than pain in the surgical area (NRS 5.5 (SD 1.9) vs. 3.1 (SD 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Neurological complications including pain following surgery and chemotherapy represent a burden to breast cancer survivors. In those who had received chemotherapy, pain in the feet was less common than pain in the surgical area, but pain in the feet was more intense and had a higher interference with daily life. Our study emphasizes the need for either baseline data or a control population for improved estimation of the presence and severity of CIPN and pain from questionnaires.

Efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful small fibre neuropathy (CONVEY): a phase 2 placebo-controlled enriched-enrolment randomised withdrawal study.

Background: No pharmacological treatments are specifically indicated for painful small fibre neuropathy (SFN). CONVEY, a phase 2 enriched-enrolment study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine, a voltage- and use-dependent sodium channel blocker, in participants with idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful SFN. Methods: CONVEY was a phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind (DB), enriched-enrolment, randomised withdrawal study. The study was conducted at 68 sites in 13 countries (Europe and Canada) between May 17, 2018, and April 12, 2021. Following a 4-week open-label period in which 265 adults with painful SFN (a mixture of large and small fibre neuropathy was not exclusionary) received oral vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily (BID), 123 participants (with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in average daily pain [ADP] score during the open-label period) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive 200 mg BID, 350 mg BID or placebo for a 12-week double-blind (DB) period. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP and the proportion of Patient Global Impression of Pain (PGIC) responders at DB Week 12. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were monitored. Statistical significance was set at 0.10 (2-sided). The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03339336) and on ClinicalTrialsregister.eu (2017-000991-27). Findings: A statistically significant difference from placebo in least squares mean reduction in ADP score from baseline to DB Week 12 was observed with vixotrigine 200 mg BID (-0.85; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.71 to 0.00; p = 0.050) but not 350 mg BID (-0.17; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.68; p = 0.70). Numerically, but not statistically significantly, more participants who received vixotrigine vs placebo experienced a ≥30% ADP reduction from baseline (68.3-72.5% vs 52.5%), and only the 350 mg BID group had significantly more PGIC responders vs placebo (48.8% vs 30.0%; odds ratio = 2.60; 95% CI, 0.97-6.99; p = 0.058) at DB Week 12. AEs were mostly mild to moderate in the vixotrigine groups. The most common AEs (≥5% of vixotrigine-treated participants) in the DB 200 mg BID and 350 mg BID vixotrigine groups were falls, nasopharyngitis, muscle spasm, and urinary tract infection. Interpretation: In our study, vixotrigine 200 mg BID, but not 350 mg BID, met the primary endpoint; more vixotrigine-treated participants experienced a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Vixotrigine (at both dosages) was well tolerated in participants with SFN. Funding: Biogen, Inc.